Talk:Main Page

Main Page error reports

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 17:31 on 16 November 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Today's FA

Atrociraptor dates from around 72.2 to 71.5 million years ago; it survived for more than 2 million years is worded a bit confusingly, as that range is evidently way less than 2 million years.

The article's lead states The holotype specimen is known from the Horsethief Member of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, which [...] ranges from around 72.2 – 71.5 million years ago. Assigned teeth from other parts of the formation indicate it survived for over 2 million years. It could be better to clarify that the "72.2 to 71.5 million years ago" figure is only for the part of the formation where the holotype was found, and doesn't represent the full range of the genus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

"72.2 to 71.5 million years ago" refers to the age of the rock formation, not the genus. I am not sure that the blurb is actually wrong, but it would be clearer if the last sentence were "Atrociraptor dates from around 72 million years ago; it survived for more than 2 million years and across a wide geographic area." Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

It's not easy being green

• ... that ontologists disagree on whether green is real?

This statement does not seem to appear in the article. If the reader looks for it, as I did, they won't find it. It seems to have been invented in the nomination and subsequent discussion rather than being derived from a particular passage in the article. The discussion took place recently but no significant updates were made to the article following it.

Note that WP:DYKHOOK requires that "The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information". As we don't have clarity about the relevant wording of the article, this is not satisfied. It's also not clear who is supposed to be providing this information as "ontologists" is used in a vague, hand-waving way contrary to WP:WEASEL.

Note also that we have an article green, which is not linked but which tells us lots of things about the concept. To suggest that none of this real seems to make a mockery of our work – crude nihilism. And so this doesn't seem to be a definite fact. As it seems that philosophers can't agree on anything, then they are not reliable sources – just airy opinions.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there appears to be no discussion about whether green, or even color, is "real" in the article. That is problematic, and a new hook probably needs to be found, though finding one for a topic as complex as this could be difficult. Gatoclass (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Universals are general, repeatable entities, like the color green. […] Ontologists disagree about which entities exist on the most basic level. Platonic realism asserts that universals have objective existence. Conceptualism says that universals only exist in the mind while nominalism denies their existence. This looks pretty straightforward to me: ontologists disagree on whether universals are real, and the color green is a universal. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Those quotes are from the lead, which is unsourced. But neither are they adjacent, so the connection between "color" as a universal and universal as a conceptual is anything but obvious. I think the reader is entitled to a plainer discussion than that. Gatoclass (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The nomination page includes the following alt hook:

• ... that ontologists disagree on whether numbers are real?

- the hook was ultimately rejected on the basis that "real" has multiple meanings, but that could be remedied by tweaking it as follows:

• ... that ontologists disagree on whether numbers objectively exist?

There appears to be plenty of discussion in the article about whether or not numbers exist, so it should be fine as a hook (IMO it's a more interesting hook anyhow), so I would suggest substituting it. Thoughts? Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Replaced with a hook from last year, as this fairly unambiguously doesn't comply with the rules and the statement about green being real isn't in the article or sourced.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Morning @Gatoclass:, just wondering where in the article we can verify the definite fact that ontologists disagree on whether numbers objectively exist? There's quite a bit of discussion on that matter, but no definite assertion of a disagreement that I can see. Also, who are these ontologists? Does it mean modern professional ontologists (as would be implied by such a statement in yhe present tense) or does it mean ancient philosophers, who are not necessarily known as *ontologists" per se... I think we'd need some clarity on that and what exactly the hook references in the article before swapping back in your alt... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It was a suggestion made on the fly, which is why I asked for further input. But I agree the article probably doesn't restate the hook with absolute clarity, and I do not have the time right now to come up with another solution. In any case, another stint at the drawing board for this article wouldn't do any harm ... Gatoclass (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Per WP:DYKG, articles that ran last year aren't eligible for DYK? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

But that rule was intended to allow users to resubmit old DYKS that had been substantially improved, it wasn't intended to limit where hooks could be taken from to replace a pulled hook. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, AFAIK this is standard practice when there's a pull in the middle of the day, I've done it a few times and I think someone else told me about it back in the mists of time! The rationale is that we don't want to slot a new hook in which then misses out on its full time slot, and it's also best not to leave it blank and then have to rearrange the rest of the main page to retain WP:MPBALANCE. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the ideas behind going to nine-hook sets was that if we ended up having to pull one for some reason, the remaining eight were enough to stand on their own. I would have just left that slot empty. It's not like a newspaper where if you pull something you're left with a hole in the page. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m with Amakuru – it’s best to maintain main page balance (which I had tweaked at the beginning of the UTC day by shortening ITN). Schwede66 16:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

There's also the option to shorten "On this day". I know it varies by screen size, but mine anyways currently shows the left (w/ DYK) being slightly longer. —Bagumba (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm viewing on the standard width on Vector 2022 (which I assume is what the majority of readers see) and DYK is currently longer than OTD, even with the extra hook that I swapped in earlier. So I think for balance we definitely, in this case at least, need to retain that extra hook. I'm not sure if OTD has grown longer in recent years - they seem to have four births/deaths rather than the previous three at least, and the blurbs look quite wordy... cropping that might be an option, but I'm not sure if there are regulars there who would get upset about that. Recycling an old hook doesn't seem like a terrible thing to me, given that it's a rare event and it's not like we're rewarding anyone excessively it's just pot luck.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC) (PS - I've just noticed that Vector 2022 doesn't' have a "standard width" for the main page, it grows and shrinks as you make the window wider; so scratch my initial point; it does seem that OTD and DYK are broadly aligned on average though)  — Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Same mosaic, different color profile.

I was confused as to why Justinian appeared to have a mustache – it turns out the picture of the famous mosaic used for OTD doesn't have the same color profile as the one used in his article. Is there a reason for the different choices? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This kind of thing has bothered me for a long time. Often I'll see a bad image of some piece of art and want to "improve" it. The problem is, I'm never sure what it's supposed to look like. Often by playing with the exposure, I can bring out detail which wasn't visible in the original image. But was it just badly photographed? Badly lit? Was the original faded after many years (or centuries)? Did the original artist intentionally make it dark for aesthetic reasons? Good technical photography will often include calibrated color chips in the frame so you can correct for all those things. But for somebody grabbing a snap in a museum, not so much. RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• 1944 – Operation Queen: ... commenced with one of the heaviest Allied tactical bombings of the war, attacking German targets in the Rur valley. — "Rur" redirects to the Roer Valley. Seems to be some confusion about these toponyms. (Also, not to be confused with the Ruhr Valley. And Ger. Wiki also directs to Roer.) – Sca (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  What do you want to change here? Secretlondon (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(November 22)

Monday's FL

(November 18)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Today's POTD

Please sync the unprotected page to the protected page to incorporate copyedits by User:jlwoodwa, User:Cowboygilbert, and User:Art LaPella.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. Oops, how'd I let that happen? Nobody really likes the duplicate POTD system because this keeps happening, but nobody who knows how ever fixes it. Art LaPella (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I’d love to get rid of that archaic system, Art LaPella. Schwede66 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)